Would a three quarters gay incestuous relationship between grandchild and grandparents being publicly nude in a degenerating world be bad?

[Timoleon of Korinthos]

A burning question for society that has caught my attention lately. Discuss.

[Biggieboy]

now you're just being silly

[Valden]

now you're just being silly

To be fair it is equal to the standard of some of the threads that get discussed round here!

[Himster]

All those words are simply synonyms for: God?

[frozenprince]

All those words are simply synonyms for: God?

If he doesn't have a Lightning Hammer, not interested.

[The Dude]

Actually this ludicrous scenario gets the same answer: it's only bad if we feel it's bad.

The whole fact that you object to something like that is completely valid, because that's how you feel. In fact, that's how most of us feel. We can safely count on the behaviour you describe in the topic title never becoming coming practice, if for no other reason than that the amount of people who actually want to do this together (and are aware of each other's desire to do so) are very, very few.

Questions like the one posted in the other thread about non-reproductive incest (ie sex between family members without risk of creating a child) are far less about whether or not we want to keep our society from degenerating into a cesspool of family sex and far more about what moral norms are truly based on. In the end all we can admit to is that it's a matter of gut feeling and an unalterable sense of revulsion we all feel about such deeds. But what do we gain by saying that those things that revolt us are objectively bad? Isn't revulsion alone more than sufficient to express our condemnation? Do we really have to travel into the realm of redunancy and rule that this is "bad", whatever bad is then supposed to mean?

[Slaytaninc]

This thread made me lose a minute of my life better spent.

[boofhead]

This thread is good, because it takes the piss out of teenagers who just can't accept anything without over analysis and a good dose of rebellion.

Why can't we rape and then eat our own pet birds?

Any disgust you have for the concept is purely conditioned, a hangover from a bygone Victorian Era when everything was shite and things like morals (ugh) to do with societal expectations (eek) held sway.

Before the utterly horrible Victorian Era invented pants, it was totally cool to walk around with a naked erection. Just normal. Bonking your sister? SWEEEET!!!! Your mother? UNREAL!!!!

[Timoleon of Korinthos]

This thread made me lose a minute of my life better spent.

So it was like the rest of your 1500 posts in TWC. Why are you complaining?

The whole fact that you object to something like that is completely valid, because that's how you feel.

Who said anything about objecting? How presumptuous of you. What I am looking for is an objective justification for choosing sides, either side, in this ambiguous issue. The fact is that I question everything, because I want to be free from outdated societal and other external constraints imposed upon me. I don't want to live my life doing what others tell me to do, I am not a pawn, I am a thinking man and this is the place where our generation's brightest philosophically inclined minds come together in their struggle to free mankind from the shackles of irrationality, that's why I asked for their insight.

Furthermore, I find your argumentation is lacking, because

a) it does not take into consideration that
1) the grandparents and the grandchild are naked in public
2) the word is degenerating around them

b) it also lacks any sensitivity analysis on the degree of gayness in this incestuous relationship

[The Dude]

What I am looking for is an objective justification for choosing sides, either side, in this ambiguous issue.

There is no objective justification. Your own feelings of revulsion suffice to denounce everything you would like to denounce. The idea that you would need something objective on top of that is fallacious.

I am a thinking man and this is the place where our generation's brightest philosophically inclined minds come together in their struggle to free mankind from the shackles of irrationality, that's why I asked for their insight.

If you weren't being absolutely facetious I'd say that if you were truly an independent thinking man free from the shackles of irrationality you'd understand why an objective moral standard is a redundancy. The autonomous human being does not need to appeal to a higher form of morality that exists outside of himself. He's perfectly comfortable decrying certain acts based on how he himself feels about them, because he understands that a subjective objection is valid enough.

[boofhead]

subjective objection is valid enough.

Hear! Hear!

Subjective analysis has power behind it. The strong arms of millions of grown men and fathers and husbands.

Objective analysis in this sense could be characterized as a couple of unattached teenage geeks living in a basement and worrying about their next Xbox bill. While being ''open-minded'', of course.

[Timoleon of Korinthos]

There is no objective justification. Your own feelings of revulsion suffice to denounce everything you would like to denounce. The idea that you would need something objective on top of that is fallacious.

Unless you are a hermit, yes, you do, because societies and states are aggregates of individuals with different feelings and ideas.

If you weren't being absolutely facetious .

Think what you will, my logic is impeccable.

I 'd say that if you were truly an independent thinking man free from the shackles of irrationality you'd understand why an objective moral standard is a redundancy. The autonomous human being does not need to appeal to a higher form of morality that exists outside of himself. He's perfectly comfortable decrying certain acts based on how he himself feels about them, because he understands that a subjective objection is valid enough

That's what KKK thought as well.

[Slaytaninc]

There is no objective justification. Your own feelings of revulsion suffice to denounce everything you would like to denounce. The idea that you would need something objective on top of that is fallacious.



If you weren't being absolutely facetious I'd say that if you were truly an independent thinking man free from the shackles of irrationality you'd understand why an objective moral standard is a redundancy. The autonomous human being does not need to appeal to a higher form of morality that exists outside of himself. He's perfectly comfortable decrying certain acts based on how he himself feels about them, because he understands that a subjective objection is valid enough.

You're missing the entire point.

This thread isn't about a discussion, it's about mocking other threads on the subject. The title line should be clear.

It's a semi-amalgamation of:

Would the gay incestuous relation between male or female siblings be bad ?
Why is it not okay to be nude in public?
Degeneration
Would an incestual relationship without a sexual component be morally wrong?

All we need is:

Why are Jews so scared of Jesus?
'Positive Racism' - the same as 'Negative Racism'? [theoretical/philosophical]

and you'll have it all

[Claudius Gothicus]

I'm pretty sure God wouldn't allow it, unless repopulation reasons are invoked

[AqD]

No. It cannot be bad because it cannot hurt me or anyone.

[Lazarus]

I'm glad we took you out of your comfort zone. However instead of being glib and immature you should be using the opportunity to try and expand as a human being. Just a tip.

[Col. Tartleton]

I'm glad we took you out of your comfort zone. However instead of being glib and immature you should be using the opportunity to try and expand as a human being. Just a the tip.

Fixed that for you.

Now it's dirty.

[frozenprince]

Fixed that for you.

Now it's dirty.

Phrasing!

[Himster]

I'm glad we took you out of your comfort zone.

You better call Kenny Loggins............ danger zone.

[Col. Tartleton]

The best part is I merely switched a definite article and not only that sentence, but the entire statement becomes sexy.